Markets treat open and closed AI advances differently: long-term bond yields fall after closed/proprietary model releases but rise after open-weight model launches, a pattern seen across Treasuries, corporate bonds and TIPS. This divergence implies investors expect different macroeconomic consequences from open versus closed models and that offsetting responses may mute the net bond-market impact of successive AI releases.

Main Finding

Market reactions to AI model announcements differ by licensing: long-term US bond yields fall after releases of proprietary (closed) models (about −10 basis points around the median event, ±15 trading days) but rise after releases of open-weight models (about +10 basis points). When both types are pooled the net effect is approximately zero. Similar directional patterns appear for treasuries, corporate bonds, and (more muted) TIPS; there are also coincident moves in inflation expectations and the US dollar index.

Key Points

• Effect sizes: median-event ±15 trading-day window shows roughly a 10 bp decline in long-term treasury yields after closed-model releases and roughly a 10 bp increase after open-weight releases (a ~20 bp divergence). Pooling both types yields a near-zero average change.
• Cross-asset patterns: analogous (directionally similar) responses in corporate bonds and TIPS (TIPS responses are smaller). Some evidence of coincident changes in VIX and lower returns for AI-related US tech equities, but these are noisier.
• Heterogeneity: the strongest and most consistent heterogeneity is licensing (open vs closed). Little meaningful heterogeneity by model performance (LMArena Elo), distance to the frontier, whether AGI-timing forecasts shifted, or within open releases by Chinese vs non-Chinese developers.
• Robustness: author replicates Andrews & Farboodi (2025) median-difference result for proprietary models and extends it using regression specifications that (a) account for overlapping event windows and (b) estimate deviations relative to prevailing trends. Results are broadly similar across specifications though statistical power falls when restricting to 2023–24.
• Caveats: small sample of events (47 total: 23 open, 24 closed); identification relies on the assumption that release dates are as-good-as-random with respect to other drivers of yields; overlapping windows handled additively; alternative explanations remain plausible.

Data & Methods

• Events: 47 major LLM releases (late 2022–2025), coded as open-weight (23) or closed/proprietary (24). Release dates taken from lab announcements (augmented relative to Andrews & Farboodi to include open models such as Meta Llama, Mistral, Alibaba, Gemma, gpt-oss, etc.).
• Model performance: LMArena Elo scores (snapshot: 4 Aug 2025) used to measure relative performance/frontier position.
• Forecasts: Metaculus median forecasts of first public AGI announcement used for AGI-timing responses.
• Financial data: bond yields from FRED; equity prices from Yahoo Finance; other market indicators (VIX, USD index, inflation expectations) also examined.
• Empirical approach:
  • Event-study framework following Andrews & Farboodi (2025).
  • Main regression: pooled event-day fixed effects across events with a ±15 trading-day window (W = 15) and a trend constant µ; sums of daily fixed effects produce cumulative returns relative to trend.
  • Comparison regression: separate day fixed effects for open vs closed events to estimate group-specific cumulative responses while accounting for overlapping windows (assuming additivity of effects).
  • Also replicate simpler median-difference procedure as a robustness check.
• Robustness checks: alternate windows, restricting to 2023–24, checking for influence of individual events, examining corporate bonds and TIPS, and testing heterogeneity by licensing, performance, AGI-forecast changes, and geography.

Implications for AI Economics

• Markets distinguish open vs closed AI advances: financial markets appear to assign different macroeconomic implications to open-weight releases than to proprietary releases. This implies that market-based indicators of AI’s economic impact (e.g., long-term yields) depend on the composition of AI news (open vs closed).
• Interpretation ambiguity: under the asset-pricing interpretation used in Andrews & Farboodi (2025), a decline in long-term yields can be read as markets lowering expectations of consumption growth or lowering the probability of extreme outcomes (bliss or doom). Applying that logic:
  • Proprietary (closed) releases → yield declines → market-implied lower probability of extreme outcomes or lower expected consumption growth.
  • Open-weight releases → yield increases → the opposite sign (higher probability of extremes or higher expected consumption growth). These implications are suggestive but not definitive because the same yield moves could arise from alternative channels.
• Possible economic channels (non-mutually exclusive):
  • Diffusion and distribution of gains: open models may accelerate diffusion and decentralize value (or raise uncertainty about who captures gains), altering growth expectations or risk premia differently than closed models.
  • Investment and credit dynamics: open releases could spur different firm-level investment (e.g., more firms building private infrastructure), changing credit demand and term structure.
  • Market concentration and rents: closed models may concentrate rents in a few firms, with consequences for aggregate saving/investment decisions that differ from broad diffusion scenarios.
  • Information/timing confounding: systematic differences in release timing or news leakage between open and closed labs could confound interpretation.
• Policy and measurement implications:
  • Studies using financial-market responses to measure beliefs about AI should include both open- and closed-model events; excluding open releases risks biased cumulative estimates.
  • Policies that affect openness (e.g., restrictions on releasing weights) may have measurable macro-financial consequences and interact with how investors form expectations about AI’s economic path.
• Research needs:
  • Larger event samples and longer windows as the technology evolves.
  • More direct identification of channels: firm-level investment/credit flows, adoption/diffusion measures, and surveys of investor beliefs to separate risk-premium vs expected-growth interpretations.
  • Examination of whether market reactions reflect expectations about distributional impacts (who captures surplus) versus aggregate growth or existential risk.

Overall, the paper shows that financial markets react differently to open vs closed AI model releases, which complicates simple aggregate interpretations of AI news on macro expectations and suggests rich channels linking AI openness, diffusion, firm behavior, and macroeconomic risk premia.